[kbenson]

Firstly, that's a rather odd argument. I wouldn't assume I could kill some old or sickly person in some remote region of the world where there were no doctors. Why does the same logic not apply to an animal? It may not apply, but at least make the case, rather than leaving it an assumption.

Secondly, I'm not sure how we can assume that the old and sickly animals are the ones being killed when humans hunt. I would assume it's a statistically higher percentage of them, but I would also assume it much less statistically relevant than with a bow, and that less than with a spear. On the other end of the spectrum, I would imagine killing deer by dropping a bomb on them would result in no statistical difference in the kills compared to the normal herd make-up. Technology lessens the "we kill the old and sickly" argument.